3 ms·

Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the mi

by jakeogh 11y ago

Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the minority's things? Does bringing up a controversial author mean anything?

alkonaut 11y ago
> Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? (Fixed some typos ^) Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not. > If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property? Not sure what you mean by that. A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.
- schoen 11y ago
  Your account is very clear, but "a law he agreed on together with B and C" is doing a lot of work here in terms of smuggling in assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority (since in your account people "agreed on" policies they explicitly object to, so long as those policies were created in particular participatory ways).
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    > assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority Yes, that post was only relevant for a democracy. "Agreed on together" was deliberately provocative, but you get the idea...

by jakeogh 11y ago

alkonaut 11y ago

> Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? (Fixed some typos ^) Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not. > If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property? Not sure what you mean by that. A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.

schoen 11y ago
Your account is very clear, but "a law he agreed on together with B and C" is doing a lot of work here in terms of smuggling in assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority (since in your account people "agreed on" policies they explicitly object to, so long as those policies were created in particular participatory ways).
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority Yes, that post was only relevant for a democracy. "Agreed on together" was deliberately provocative, but you get the idea...